When did Adam/Eve Live?

[marciadietrich]

I was saying he was skeptical in terms overall- thus context. Having countless people for an unknown period of time “marrying into” humanity appears to conflict with the teaching in Humani Generis and in light of what is in the Catechism quoted previously.

Even if we accept evolution to some extent in man’s beginnings, we cannot accept people having any other origin but direct descent from Adam. That is the way I read it, and I don’t think I’m alone on that as Catholic.com evolution tract agrees on that.

HG was written to be sure that the people teaching science did not change or distort the faith in their teaching. And HG is not necessarily speaking of evolution as a whole, but of exactly how important proper teaching and adhering to faith is in what we believe about man’s origins and original sin as it is directly related to our need for a savior.

Quoting non-Dogmatic, non-Doctrinal claims does not make any kind of argument against the facts supplied by reason.

I have been quoting a papal document and the Catechism of the Catholic church. A papal document that specifically called upon 'revelation and the teaching authority of the Church.’ The Catechism is the main ‘norm’ for teaching the faith. This website lists dogma - a couple from that:
-The first man was created by God.
-**The rational soul *per se ***is the essential form of the body.

No, it doesn’t at all, because we know by revealed Dogma and Doctrine that this isn’t so.

( “It”= people without souls today)

What dogma or doctrine directly says this rather than implied or assumed? Isn’t it likely the same dogma and/or doctrine that would imply that we all descend from Adam?

All this says is that human body is human because it is animated by the soul, not because of any genetic quality. A humanoid form is merely an animal body without a human soul. This is stated in the previous paragraph:

**“364 **The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit”

This, rightly understood, actually reinforces the idea that a body is a human body because it has a spiritual soul (human soul) and not just a material soul (plant or animal soul) . Thus a human form according to individuality, age and circumstances of life because we have a human (spiritual) soul. Thus in death, the body not only dies and become ‘inanimate,’ but also decays and loses its ‘form.’

**362 **The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual.
"The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

(red text what you left out of the CCC 362 quote)

Symbolic language here is not a problem to an actual creation of some sort as opposed to evolution because man is much more complex than a clay figure. The creation of Adam wasn’t literally molding clay and then a CPR event to physically breathe life into Adam. Thus symbolic language. I think evolution avoids this reality of man being ‘created in the image of God,’ and makes it more of a remote and impersonal event.
-M-

 

[Ghosty]

Marcia: I don’t think you’re quite grasping what I’m saying. I’ve never once said that any human on Earth didn’t descend directly from Adam, nor have I said that any “true man”, to use the Pope’s own language, has ever been born that did not descend directly from Adam. Take some time to go back over what I’ve been saying, because you’re now presenting statements that exactly mirror my own.

Even if we accept evolution to some extent in man’s beginnings, we cannot accept people having any other origin but direct descent from Adam. That is the way I read it, and I don’t think I’m alone on that as Catholic.com evolution tract agrees on that.

I have attested to this in every post I’ve made. Every human is directly descended from Adam.

This, rightly understood, actually reinforces the idea that a body is a human body because it has a spiritual soul (human soul) and not just a material soul (plant or animal soul) . Thus a human form according to individuality, age and circumstances of life because we have a human (spiritual) soul. Thus in death, the body not only dies and become ‘inanimate,’ but also decays and loses its ‘form.’

Precisely what I’ve been saying this whole time. Though I would argue that, by definition, the soul is spiritual and not material. The difference is that the human soul is immortal. There is no such thing as a material soul.

I think evolution avoids this reality of man being ‘created in the image of God,’ and makes it more of a remote and impersonal event.

Every individual is created in the image of God, and most individuals are created in the womb. Does this make their creation impersonal? The imparting of a human, immortal soul into our material form is innately personal, and, in fact, is meant to be personal for both the parents (in the act of making love), and for God. Evolving the material building blocks of humanity does not make this event any less personal, as the soul is still directly imparted to Adam just as much as it would have been if he began as a clay doll.

I think you are definately misreading me. I would add, however, that direct descent DOES NOT MEAN sole descent, and nowhere does Dogma or Doctrine state that the material forms that are personally animated with a human soul claim sole descent from Adam. An example of this is that I’m directly descended from my father’s father, but I am NOT solely descended from him. I inherit my last name from him, making me a direct member of the family title, but my mother’s sister does not have this title or relation despite her blood relation to me. If the name were the soul, the exact same thing could be said about Adam and his descendants with no deviation from Dogma.

 

[st_julie]

Adam and Eve lived from the time they wrer created until they died.

 

[marciadietrich]

Ghosty,
I am going to let you have the last word after this, and say thanks for your patience.

When I say directly descend from Adam only, I mean Adam and Eve alone as the sole and only first parents of all and no other outside descent.

Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. The human race really did descend from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) rather than a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

Intermarrying perhaps many, many generations later of basically a non human ancestory coming in from the side, then we still have polygenism. People on earth descending from many and various first couples, even if somehow they eventually were able to get into a line from Adam no matter how remote.

Given that scenario some groups or races of people would be more or less from Adam (some nearly 100% Adam and Eve heritage, others a mix of varying amounts.) Catholic teaching is that humanity is a unity in common origin from Adam and I don’t believe that is open to non humans mixing in over time.

Though I would argue that, by definition, the soul is spiritual and not material. The difference is that the human soul is immortal. There is no such thing as a material soul.

Our soul is spiritual, and that is why it is immortal. Soul and spirit are not synonymous. Most souls are not spiritual. A “material soul” is a soul that only animates the matter of a plant or animal for the course of its life.
( radicalacademy.com/jdpsychology6.htm ) If it lives, it has a soul - if it is a plant or animal then it has a “material soul.”
The word translated soul for Adam in Gen 2: 7 is also used of the creatures God creates. Some translations use creature instead, but it is from Strong’s Hebrew 5315 and is the word soul or life.

– Darby’s Bible
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so.

Also, as I said before, the soul always determines the “form” of the material object:

newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm
Substantial form, in material entities, is that which determines or actuates materia prima (see MATTER) to a specific substantial nature or essence, as the form of hydrogen, a rose, horse, or man.

If it has a human body - if it is physically a man, a human form, then it has a human soul. I’m not sure if there is room there for a material-only human soul. The soul is not an add-on or afterthought, but an integral part of even our physical being as the soul animates and forms - without the soul we are dead matter.

newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm
Man is not a body plus a soul—which would make of him two individuals; but a body that is what it is (namely, a human body) by reason of its union with the soul.

Whatever Adam would have evolved from, not being truly human, likely would not have been a totally modern human form and not likely Adam’s descendents would have married those creatures. There was no suitable helpmate (wife) for Adam among the beasts. Why would there be suitable wives/husbands for Adam’s descendents among the beasts?

Marcia

 

[Ghosty]

I believe it will only go in circles at this point, but I’ll try one last time to put my point forth.

Polygenism is not as you describe. It is the theory in which the different races descended from different “Adams”, rather than a single Adam. It was the stance by some scientists that different races did NOT have any kind of common origin. This theory was espescially prevalent in the 19th Century. Polygenism is not supported by Faith OR Reason. It is a racist assertion that put different races of humans outside of the “true race” descended from Adam and Eve. You can see a brief description of this idea here:

victorianweb.org/science/sci2.html

The debate between polygenism and monogenism must be understood in this context. Monogenism was originally the assertion that humans belonged to a single species, regardless of how many parents they sprung from. I agree 100% with the quotes you’ve made, as they simply indicate that 1) there was an original human couple, and 2) all humans today descend directly from them. Furthermore, there is no “more or less” human people today, because humans are defined by the presence of the human soul, not genetic material. Since ALL people posess a human soul, by virtue of their direct descent from Adam and Eve, all people are equally human, just as human as Adam and Eve were.

As for whether the soul is spiritual or material, it seems we’re simply using different base terminology. In the manner I was speaking, material refers purely to measurable, quantifiable “matter”. That is the understanding of “materialism”, for example. Anything not quantifiable, such as a soul of any kind, would not be material using that definition. In the definitions you described, I have no problem with the term “material soul”, that’s simply not the linguistic base I was working from.

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

I believe it will only go in circles at this point, but I’ll try one last time to put my point forth.

Polygenism is not as you describe. It is the theory in which the different races descended from different “Adams”, rather than a single Adam. It was the stance by some scientists that different races did NOT have any kind of common origin. This theory was espescially prevalent in the 19th Century. Polygenism is not supported by Faith OR Reason. It is a racist assertion that put different races of humans outside of the “true race” descended from Adam and Eve. You can see a brief description of this idea here:

victorianweb.org/science/sci2.html

The debate between polygenism and monogenism must be understood in this context. Monogenism was originally the assertion that humans belonged to a single species, regardless of how many parents they sprung from. I agree 100% with the quotes you’ve made, as they simply indicate that 1) there was an original human couple, and 2) all humans today descend directly from them. Furthermore, there is no “more or less” human people today, because humans are defined by the presence of the human soul, not genetic material. Since ALL people posess a human soul, by virtue of their direct descent from Adam and Eve, all people are equally human, just as human as Adam and Eve were.

Hello, we have discussed this before…

The correct definition of polgenism is: The doctrine that animals of the same species have sprung from more than one original pair’. In that sense the human species is absolutely polygenic.

What you describe is not a polygenic but a polyphyletic group. You said: 'It is the theory in which the different races descended from different “Adams” ’ That absolutely debunked theory is that humans represent a polyphyletic group. Science says that humans are a monophyletic group with polygenic origins.

The fact that the intra-racial molecular diversity of umans exceeds the inter-racial diversity proves beyond doubt that humans are monophyletic. The diversity of polymorphic loci show that humans are polygenic.

Catholic doctrine is, I am afraid, in conflict with the plain conclusions of science here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[twf]

Besides the fact that it seems obvious to me from Scriptures and from Sacred Tradition that Adam and Eve were physically immortal, there is another way to demonstrate that physical death is a result of sin (not just spiritual death). The entire Assumption of our Lady is based upon the premise that, because she had not sinned and was free from original sin, she would not decay…thus, we must conclude, that physical decay, at least in humans, is a result of original sin. This gives you another big problem (by you, I refer to those who believe God used evolution in creation). Somehow, you must fit hundreds of thousands of years into geneologies that give AGES of when they gave birth to their child (which poses a problem for the idea of massive gaps), the fact that there can be no non-Adamic humans after original sin (Cain’s wife would obviously be one of his many sisters, the idea being that they were far more genetically pure, had not yet accumulated so many mutations like we have…hey, even a few thousand years later, Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sarah—Gen. 20:12), and that physical death was a result of original sin.

 

[marciadietrich]

hecd2:

The correct definition of polgenism is: The doctrine that animals of the same species have sprung from more than one original pair’. In that sense the human species is absolutely polygenic.
…
Catholic doctrine is, I am afraid, in conflict with the plain conclusions of science here.

Thank you Alec,

I understood the basic concepts but lacked the terminology to describe the difference between polygenic and polyphyletic.

I agree with your conclusion on the conflict between doctrine and conclusions of science, just we seem to be going in opposite directions in dealing with it.

Marcia

 

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

Thank you Alec,

I understood the basic concepts but lacked the terminology to describe the difference between polygenic and polyphyletic.

I agree with your conclusion on the conflict between doctrine and conclusions of science, just we seem to be going in opposite directions in dealing with it.

Marcia

I don’t mean to be a source of scandal for you as you try to take the teachings of the Church seriously, but the scientific evidence for polygenism is very strong indeed. I’ve already posted in detail on this subject in two other threads on this board, and don’t plan to repeat that here (unless others think that it would be helpful to understand exactly what the evidence is within this thread).

It seems to me that there are three possible courses of action for the Church to take:

• Maintain the doctrine of monogenism in its literal form in spite of the fact that it conflicts with what we observe. There is a danger here for the Church, that the longer she maintains her teaching in the face of contrary evidence, the more damaging her eventual back down will be
• Accept that the story of Adam and Eve is figurative and describes a loss of innocence and a coming into full humanity of the human race with all its imperfections and sins
• Follow an approach along Ghosty’s lines, whereby only two individuals were given immortal souls, but their descendants interbred with humans without immortal souls. I think that that is a deeply unsatisfactory solution that is burdened with all sorts of logical and moral problems, some of which you have pointed out

There is a general issue, of course, in that all Church teachings that intersect with observations about the physical world are in danger, at some point, of being found wanting. However true the bible and the Church’s teachings on spritual and moral matters, neither bible nor church teaching seems to be a good guide to truth about the physical world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

The infallible pronouncements of Eve as being formed from Adam will have to be dealt with. This consistent teaching does not allow for evolution of man.

The special creation of man can have absolutely nothing to do with evolution as he could have been specially created (inserted) anywhere in the timeline God wished.

 

[hecd2]

buffalo:

The infallible pronouncements of Eve as being formed from Adam will have to be dealt with. This consistent teaching does not allow for evolution of man.

The special creation of man can have absolutely nothing to do with evolution as he could have been specially created (inserted) anywhere in the timeline God wished.

It is logically meaningless to talk about Eve being formed from Adam when neither Eve nor Adam literally existed.

Furthermore, I believe that your statement ‘This consistent teaching does not allow for evolution of man’ is a claim that the magisterium teaches that evolution does not apply to man. I do not claim to be competent in knowing what the magisterium teaches, and I am sure that others more competent than I am will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that an evolutionary origin for the human species is not forbidden by current Catholic teaching.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[marciadietrich]

hecd2:

I don’t mean to be a source of scandal for you as you try to take the teachings of the Church seriously, but the scientific evidence for polygenism is very strong indeed.

Hello Alec,

I understand that is absolutely what the science is saying. This issue hit me between the eyes a few months ago, and has caused me some grief trying to find a way both the faith and the science could be true and compatible as stated. So, I understand that this situation seems impossible to resolve - at least given the information we have on each side of the issue.

You believe the disallowing a belief in polygenism will have to go. I feel theChurch needs to stick with it, bolster the teaching on original sin and just let people know that even though a belief in the evolution of Adam’s body is allowed, that we have a point where there is a conflict with current scientific thought - probably due to direct intervention by God in mankind’s beginnings. I know that is unacceptable as far as science goes, but beliefs like transubstantiation go into miraculous and require faith over the senses and science.

Right now it is every man for himself. I’d prefer that the Church weigh in on it with some authority. Directly address the issues and set some limits in terms that are clear and not requiring us to dig and piece things together on our own. I probably shouldn’t hold my breath, you either, as they seem to prefer to split the middle for as long as possible.

Marcia

 

[buffalo]

hecd2:

It is logically meaningless to talk about Eve being formed from Adam when neither Eve nor Adam literally existed.

Furthermore, I believe that your statement ‘This consistent teaching does not allow for evolution of man’ is a claim that the magisterium teaches that evolution does not apply to man. I do not claim to be competent in knowing what the magisterium teaches, and I am sure that others more competent than I am will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that an evolutionary origin for the human species is not forbidden by current Catholic teaching.

/QUOTE]

**343 **Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.
**355 **“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
[360](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/360.htm’) Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

37**[1](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/371.htm’)** God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

 

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

Hello Alec,

I understand that is absolutely what the science is saying. This issue hit me between the eyes a few months ago, and has caused me some grief trying to find a way both the faith and the science could be true and compatible as stated. So, I understand that this situation seems impossible to resolve - at least given the information we have on each side of the issue…

Right now it is every man for himself. I’d prefer that the Church weigh in on it with some authority. Directly address the issues and set some limits in terms that are clear and not requiring us to dig and piece things together on our own. I probably shouldn’t hold my breath, you either, as they seem to prefer to split the middle for as long as possible.

Marcia

Marcia,

I am sorry this is causing you grief. Perhaps we should drop it?

Strengthening the teaching that the human lineage leading to human beings today passed through a genetic bottleneck of two individuals, would, in my opinion, be very unwise. It is very clear that that did not happen. Unless the Church is willing to accept the really troublesome concept of interbreeding between beings with and without eternal souls, which seems to me to be a disturbing miscagenation, and the logical consequence that humans without eternal souls could be alive today (which is, I am sure you will agree, a vicious idea) then sooner or later she will have to face the plain fact that human ancestry passes through a population which has a minimum of 10,000 individuals; or stick with a doctrine that is totally at odds with what God’s creation tells us directly, with all the embarassment and scandal that that implies.

The invocation of a miracle is always possible of course. In this case, the miracle will have not just to breathe the eternal soul into Adam (a concept that science can say nothing about) but it would have had to manipulate the genomes of humans to make it appear incontrovertibly as though the human population bottleneck is 10,000. That sort of miracle is not one that I hope anyone here thinks God would perform (it is standard apologetics from Young Earth Creationists who refute strong scientific evidence with the unanswerable but specious argument that God created it to appear that way - eg the creation of light in transit - an argument that implicitly accepts the concept of a deceitful God).

Anyway, in the last few days I have been thinking about the Church’s stance on this matter. I think I have been unfairly critical. The evidence strong though it is, has only been available over the last twenty years or so at the most, as the ability to sequence genomes has been developed. To expect the Church to abandon or modify a doctrine in such a relatively short time (short for her that is) that she has been so clear about in the past is unreasonable. She will probably fudge the issue for a while longer and then find a way to accomodate polygenism or at least to allow polygenism to be an open issue. I think that sticking to strict monogenism in ten or twenty years time will be untenable. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to set your worry aside and avoid it being a stumbling block in your faith.

The whole issue arises from the fact that many doctrines that intersect with science were established and promulgated before science, as an independent and powerful source of natural and physical knowledge came into her own. For example, the doctrine that forbids a belief in an infinitely old universe, could be coming under threat ( the question of a temporally finite or infinite universe to the past is still an open question in science with good hypotheses and observations building for the infinite case).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[marciadietrich]

hecd2:

I am sorry this is causing you grief. Perhaps we should drop it?

Hi again Alec,

You’re very kind to worry about me. Though I should take a break from the boards soon, you’ve done nothing to cause me any stress and I have appreciated hearing your views.

It is bedtime here, so I may come back tomorrow and reply on some of your points.

Good night and will talk to you tomorrow.

Marcia

 

[Ghosty]

hecd2: Your definition certainly applies today, but the term was not used that way when the discussion was at a fevered pitch a century ago. The website I linked to displays this well, I believe. Polygenism, as understood then, was what you call polyphyletic today. Until we have a modern writing by the Magesterium using today’s language as to what we can and can’t believe, we’re forced to use the term “polygenic” as it was understood at the time. Our language has gotten more exact, but the Church teachings have not been updated. As always, context is paramount to understanding what was being said.

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

hecd2: Your definition certainly applies today, but the term was not used that way when the discussion was at a fevered pitch a century ago. The website I linked to displays this well, I believe. Polygenism, as understood then, was what you call polyphyletic today. Until we have a modern writing by the Magesterium using today’s language as to what we can and can’t believe, we’re forced to use the term “polygenic” as it was understood at the time. Our language has gotten more exact, but the Church teachings have not been updated. As always, context is paramount to understanding what was being said.

Hi Ghosty. Fine - I don’t know enough about the arguments from more thn 100 years ago to comment on the history.

But, in my view that doesn’t affect what I’m saying. Science and the Magisterium agree that human races do not have separate origins (agree in other words that all humans are monophyletic). In fact the scientific findings emphasise this fact wonderfully. There is more molecular variation within a racial group than between the averages of racial groups. Humans are an unusually tightly knit species.

Where scince and the magisterium part company is with regard to whether the human lineage passed through a bottleneck of two individuals. You can call it what you like, but that is what Humani Generis, backed up by JPII’s address to the Academy of sciences, lays down as the truth and what scientists plainly see cannot be the truth.

Alec
evolutionpags.com

 

[twf]

I don’t have time at the moment to get into a big discussion, nor to go into detail, but Alec, as faithful Catholics we should realize that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, while scientists are not. Regardless of how strong the evidence appears to be for this or that, it could be disproven or discarded at some future date…science changes a LOT faster than the Church. The universe DOES have a beginning. To say otherwise, I’m afraid to tell you, is heresy, and that will never ever change…otherwise our faith is in vein. If the Church is wrong on any one matter of faith and morals, than she is not infallible. If she is not infallible, then how can we trust anything she teaches? And if we can not trust what she teaches, then how do we know what Christ has revealed to us? The same goes for Adam and Eve. All scientists have biases, so perhaps there is another way to interpret the data you are referring to? I would advise you to wait and see, as time unfolds. (If the Church is infallible, then would it not follow that we should look at the universe from the premises she lays out for us? When we’re dealing with historical science, many assumptions must be made…if we know that certain assumptions are incorrect, then the facts, which do not change, are interpreted differently…interpretations of the same facts, in historical sciences, vary depending on the assumptions different groups of scientists begin with).

 

[Bill_Rutland]

Hi Phil,

As a creationist I would like to add my two cents. As to your first question of when Adam and Eve existed, I must claim ignorance. But, we are told by Scripture and the infallible teaching of the Church that Adam and Eve were historical people and that they were the first parents of all people.

I take the Genesis account pretty much as it stands, though I do not hold that creation was in six literal 24 hour days (but, I do not completely discount that it could have happened that way). It is my opinion that Catholics many times are far too willing to scrap Genesis in favor of evolution without really understanding either Scripture or evolution. I do not deny that God could have used macro evolution as the mechanism of creation, but just because God could have done something doesn’t mean that He did.

Whereas the problems with the Genesis account are played up, I hardly ever hear a discussion of the problems of evolution, both theological and scientific. When I speak of evolution I mean macro evolution which produces speciation, micro evolution acting as a mechanism to preserve a species is pretty much a fact and is supported by the fossil record.

Macro evolution on the other hand is fully without support in the fossil record. Scientists have found millions of fossils, but not one that is clearly a transitionary form. Species in the fossil record appear abruptly, fully formed and become extinct in pretty much the same condition in which they began. This has caused some modern evolutionists such as Steven J. Gould to resurrect Richard B. Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters” theory. Goldschmidt proposed that whereas genetic mutations are usually harmful, every once in a great while they are beneficial producing a “hopeful monster” which is a new species. Gould, injecting Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters” theory into the theory of *ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny * (the theory that the fetus of an animal goes through all of its evolutionary history in it development, a theory which modern genetics has all but destroyed) proposes *punctuated equilibria * which would have us believe that new species suddenly arose, fully formed from an ancestor of a different species, such as birds from dinosaurs.

Where as the gradual change of Darwinism is plagued by the problem of transitional forms which cannot function, such as a proto-human who’s pelvis will allow him neither to walk upright or on all fours, *punctuated equilibria * is faced with the problem of it consistently producing enough males and females to propagate the new specifies, and the lack of genetic variety to insure the new species will not be wiped out by future bad mutations. Add to this the problem of the fact that species always tend toward the norm and not the novel, so that even if a “hopeful monster” would created, his little monster progeny would revert back to the stock from which they came.

A lot of people much smarter than I am hold to evolution, so it is quite possible that I am just not “getting it.” It is also possible that I an still so steeped in my pre-Catholic Fundamentalism that I cannot think outside of the box. Rather I suspect that when we fully know as we are fully known (as St. Paul says cf. I Corinthians 13 9-12) there will be no conflict between Science and Scripture (and I fully expect science to be the one eating crow).

PAX CHRISTI

Bill
Christ the King Apologetics Guild

 

[PhilVaz]

BillRutland << Macro evolution on the other hand is fully without support in the fossil record. Scientists have found millions of fossils, but not one that is clearly a transitionary form. >>

Thanks for the note. But you don’t want to make these kinds of comments since they simply are not true. There are plenty of transitionals, and yes a lot of gaps. The transitionals are well known and well documented at TalkOrigins

Vertebrate Transitionals (fish to amphibs to reptiles to mammals, etc)

Reptile-to-Bird Transitionals

Land Mammal-to-Whale Transitionals

Hominid-Human Transitionals

BillRutland << Species in the fossil record appear abruptly, fully formed and become extinct in pretty much the same condition in which they began. >>

For much of the record that is true, but we also find plenty of transitionals. I wanted to check this out for myself, so I took out a standard paleontology book on the fossil record, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll (1988), and found this:

Carroll on the transitionals:

“During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. Evidence from both paleontology and molecular biology provides much new information on the initial radiation of both birds and placental mammals.” (Carroll, page xiii preface)

Carroll on the gaps and incompleteness of the fossil record:

“One of the major reasons for the continuing debate regarding the rates and patterns of evolution is certainly the incompleteness of the fossil record. In Darwin’s time, no evolving sequences had been discovered. At the present time, the fossil record provides a good framework of evolutionary patterns, but significant gaps remain between many of the major groups and between most well-known species and genera. Where dating is possible, most depositional sequences show significant gaps. Even in well-documented sequences, species and genera commonly appear suddenly in the fossil record. This pattern may be attributed to sudden evolution within the area being sampled, but it can almost always be accounted for by migration from some other part of the world.” (Carroll, page 571).

Why we don’t find “billions” of transitionals

This answered my questions, and I wish people would stop bringing up this false argument of “no transitionals.” They are there, so It’s not true. But thanks for all the comments anyway, especially those dealing with Adam/Eve. It’s still a big question in my mind.

Phil P